Dreamworks Animation Wiki

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion.

Flushed Away: The Series

Theres been no official announcement by DreamWorks or Aardman on a Flushed Away TV series. It needs to be removed.--Karlamon9 22:09, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar 3

This article is best deleted because, there is already a another same-topic page. I was holding on this page without knowing this. (Sorry, if I had hurt anyone's feelings.) 09:04, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

It's been redirected to the full title. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 03:39, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Shark Tale 2

Shark Tale 2 should not get deleted........ 'cause it was my idea I hope they release that movie sequel to Shark Tale this year on July 13........ you know........ it's best to go over to the movie theaters on weekends. - 16:50, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

This is not a fan fiction wiki. But setting that aside, there is a difference between wanting a movie to continue and what you are doing. If a person wants a movie to continue, they may write fan fiction, which is saying "this is my story with characters that other people created".
What you are doing is posting things that say "this is my story with characters that other people created and a movie is being made that will be released on a specific date". By adding that a movie is being made and will be released on a specific date, especially when it is on a wiki like this on that is not a fan fiction wiki, it becomes false information. When you keep posting false information, it becomes spam.
Technically, this could also be considered vandalism because you keep adding it after repeatedly being asked not to, then being told not to, then being blocked because you keep doing it and you've done it on a couple dozen wikis under about the same number of accounts and numerous IP addresses.
This is going to be deleted along with the rest of your fan fiction spam. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 02:18, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
The above is an example of false information repeatedly added by this person on numerous wikis. It progressed beyond spam to become vandalism and the user is still at it over a year later. He is not welcome on any wiki I am an admin on. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 05:26, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Main Protagonists category

Theres already a protagonist category and MAIN protagonists is the same time thing. 16:45, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Sequels of Kung Fu Panda 3

These pages mustn't be deleted while the official release dates have not been confirmed (or unconfirmed) by Jeffrey Katzenberg himself. 701847 (talk) 13:35, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can claim that "Jeffrey Katzenberg said blah, blah, blah", but do you have a reference for the forthcoming status of the alleged sequels? And even if these sequels are really planned, the fact remains that they're planned, not here (yet), so the series as it stands at present consists of three films. I have corrected the series article accordingly. When and if the other three movies are released, then the article can be changed again to include them. — evilquoll (talk) 04:09, September 30, 2017 (UTC)

Tip Tucci (2016 series)

This article was created (and immediately marked for deletion) about a month ago; isn't it about time something was done about it? Perhaps merge the contents with the main Tip Tucci page (assuming this is appropriate) and then either delete this page or make it a redirector to the main one? — RobertATfm (talk) 08:39, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

I have now done the merge. There is no point in having two pages for the almost exact same character, simply because one instance is in a movie and the other in a TV series. Hence this page (which in any case is now just a redirector) should be deleted, along with the equally superfluous Tip Tucci (character in 2016 Series) page to which it was moved. — evilquoll (talk) 20:13, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Voltron live-action movie

This actually is happening: source.--Voltron23 (talk) 20:17, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

File:Veggies.jpg and File:Veggietales tag.gif

These have both been flagged for deletion by User:TheSitcomLover, but I suspect this to be a false and malicious nomination as they are both an important part of the VeggieTales page, which the same user also nominated. (As the latter was a vandal nomination (replacing the page contents with the delete notice, instead of adding the notice as one is supposed to do), and as this page seems to be a relevant and important page, I reverted that nomination.) I think these notices both need to be removed. — RobertATfm (talk) 07:10, May 2, 2017 (UTC)

I removed the deletion notices. They both seem to be valid pictures. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 01:50, June 3, 2017 (UTC)

Boyz in the Sink: a VeggieTales Movie

I have done a web search for this, and can find no evidence that this is a real forthcoming project.

This page has also been subject to a lot of vandalism regarding the delete nomination: the original author has twice removed the delete tag without any attempt at discussion, and another author has several times blanked the page, replacing the contents with the delete tag. As the latter prevents others judging for themselves whether deletion is warranted, it is an act of vandalism (and officially described as such in the policies of some wikis).

evilquoll (talk) 08:11, September 28, 2017 (UTC)

The page creator has again vandalised the page by removing the delete tag without community discussion. Please, admins, delete the flippin' thing and get it over with. — evilquoll (talk) 16:17, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
And yet again. He seems to have the attitude that his fanon is more important than this wiki's policies or other users. Just delete the thing and ban him, already. — evilquoll (talk) 23:52, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
It's overdue that this issue be resolved, as the page creator persistently refuses to provide proof that this article isn't fanon, or to allow proper discussion of the delete notice. — evilquoll (talk) 21:19, October 24, 2017 (UTC)
The idiot has now cobbled together an "official logo" image (File:Dreamworks_boyz_in_the_sink_logo.png) which is clearly just the logo cropped from the album art (parts of the background can still be seen) plus some added bits. This is another piece of fanon which needs to be deleted. — evilquoll (talk) 00:19, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Template:Character Infobox

I refuse the deletion of this template. Because it permesses to assemble secondary details on the caracters' articles. And all the templates have their own utility. 701847 (talk) 10:56, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

It's because of the "secondary details" (which belong on the article page, not in the infobox, and which were thus removed from the official infobox) that this unofficial re-creation of the infobox has been nominated for deletion. These kind of details are called "infobox stuffing". — evilquoll (talk) 16:24, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. But it's not a reason for delete this precious templete. 701847 (talk) 16:38, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
It should be deleted because it's superfluous -- we alrewady have the proper one. — evilquoll (talk) 21:03, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

The reason why the Infobox was changed to remove a lot of items is because people were trying to put everything into the Infobox that needed to go in the main body of the page. We wound up with situations where there were fifty ways of describing the character's behavior in the Infobox and one or two sentences on the page.

The Infobox is a short summary of the characters and not where you stuff everything about that character. Examples of the Infobox stuffing:

  • Why bother showing how a character is ruthless if I can just say they're "ruthless" into the Infobox?
  • Why bother showing how they are arrogant if I can just say they're "arrogant" into the Infobox?
  • Why bother showing how the character came to wanting money above all else if I can just put "greedy" in the Infobox?

Infoboxes became a dumping ground of lists of factoids with no proof to support them, abused to the point where I had to step in and bring them back to the purpose of being a short summary. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 17:56, November 18, 2018 (UTC)

Sheep (A Close Shave)

This has been nominated for deletion on the basis that A Close Shave is pre-DreamWorks and that the production/distribution agreement was only for Aardman's movies, not for their short films nor for intellectual property rights on the movies' characters; but a new editor removed the notice without bothering to enter into discussion about it. Clearly, said editor is ignorant about wiki rules generally (e.g. you don't remove a delete tag without discussion, just because you disagree with it; nor do you blank the page in the process of adding the tag), and also about exactly what the agreement between Aardman and DreamWorks covered (the three movies) and what it didn't (everything else, including the supporting characters of the movies and any Aardman shorts in which they also appeared). Please, delete this page (and all other non-CotW-R pages which have liikeiwse been tagged) and get it over with. — evilquoll (talk) 06:43, January 14, 2019 (UTC)

Template:Character and its doc page

Unused template, superseded by Template:Infobox character. — evilquoll (talk) 10:45, January 25, 2019 (UTC)

Done. — evilquoll (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Junie B Jones

Junie B JonesJellybean564 (talk) 13:57, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Blatant fanon, which I believe has already been created and deleted once. Delete (again). — evilquoll (talk) 18:02, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Cats & Dogs... Really. It's been here for 19 years..jpg

Apart from the given delete reason (misnamed file), there is also the fact that this image is not used and never likely to be used, and that the "copyright status" declared in the metadata is false (the image is claimed to be "public domain" despite being composed almost entirely of items which are the property of DreamWorks). (And the "orientation" is claimed to be "normal", whatever that is supposed to mean; valid values for "orientation" are "landscape" or "portrait", nothing else.) — evilquoll (talk) 15:12, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

Trolls (Trolls)

This page is an extreme example of the infobox stuffing which besets character pages; it consists only of an infobox, nothing else (except a cleanup tag and a delete tag). Some actual content is needed. Possible examples: Who or what are the Trolls? Who created them, and when? Were they created for DreamWorks, or are they something DreamWorks picked up?... and so forth. — evilquoll (talk) 12:05, April 3, 2019 (UTC)

Madame Winnie Bago

This is a minor character from Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, with no plot significance, and the article has never had any real content, just a stub tag. More importantly, It has had several vandal edits, including a spate of them yesterday from four usernames (but probably only one person). This is why it is currently locked for editing.

Because of this, I am planning to delete this and all other articles for insignificant characters from this movie; only the important ones will remain. I am planning to do this on Friday May 3rd. — evilquoll (talk) 18:02, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

It turned out that this was a fanon article, so I deleted it. The planned deletion of all minor-chartacter articles still stands, unless I get some good reasons why it should not. — evilquoll (talk) 22:38, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

Two timeline articles

There are two timeline articles on this wiki, namely Possible Timeline of DreamWorks Animation and DreamWorks' possible timeline. Do we really need both of them? For that matter, do we need either of them?

They strike me as speculation / fanon along the lines of the "Pixar Theory", a notorious fanonical "timeline" which was created and deleted several times on the Pixar Wiki, and has now been locked down to prevent further creation. The fact that both names include "possible" reinforces the idea that they are speculation rather than fact. Another indication is that despite nearly all clues in Wallace & Gromit: the Curse of the Were-Rabbit pointing to that movie being set in 1966, one editor moved its entry in the second of the two pages from 1966 to 2005. (And CotWR and the other two Aardman productions aren't really DreamWorks as such, they were only financed and distributed by DreamWorks; so why are any of them on either list?)

I am going to delete both of them as fanon speculation on International Pi Day (22 July 2019), unless I get some good reasons why they should stay. — evilquoll (talk) 12:23, June 7, 2019 (UTC)

Category:LGBT characters

I have nominated this category for deletion because none of the pages thus tagged have any details of how or why said character is LGBT. This category is thus, as it currently stands, a pointless category; it conveys no (supported) information, and I suspect that in some cases it has been applied just for the sake of doing so; for instance, is it really true that most of the She-Ra: Princesses of Power characters are LGBT?

The creator of the category has told me that I should search the web for references to prove those characters' status; but I don't have the time or the energy to do so, and why doesn't he do so himself, and add the references himself?

He also told me to watch various movies and shows for evidence, but that kind of evidence cannot be put into a wiki article, and again I don't have the time or energy, nor do I want to spend money on research into something that I'm not very interested in, even if it's currently available.

Thus, so far, the status of this category is "Evidence: none". I think that I should give it another week, then go ahead and delete this category. -- evilquoll (talk) 02:11, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

The category creator has now told me that he can't find any evidence that the characters tagged with this category truly fit into it (and thus that this category is valid); so how does he expect me, or anyone else, to find such evidence? He also reiterated that I should waste my time and money on watching the movies and shows (assuming that they are even still available); who is he to say that I should do that? And unless such evidence is in the form of a YouTube clip which can be embedded, it's useless for wiki purposes anyway.
Since this category thus appears to be not only pointless but also fake, I propose to delete it on July 1 if no evidence is forthcoming by then. -- evilquoll (talk) 09:54, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should try watching the movie or show to learn if they are or aren’t? - The Creator of Category.

Maybe you should quit telling others what they should do with their time and money, and find some real evidence, of the type that can be included on a wiki page? -- evilquoll (talk) 10:44, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

No in-article evidence has emerged, hence the category page is now gone. It remains only to remove the category itself from articles. -- evilquoll (talk) 14:13, August 1, 2020 (UTC)